(20-10-2012 10:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I'm rather shocked that the TED talk series would give this dumb-ass time for this woo woo.

I can't even watch it.
1. Fallacy at 1:00. We admit with Dark Energy and Dark Matter, we don't have anything like a complete picture.
2. If "life creates time", then how the hell did life "start". "Something" changes. That *something* is not dependent on life.
3. Non-life exists, and changes.
4. The Descartes statement redo could just as well be "time passes, thus I exist".
5. There is no such thing as "time' Einstein proved it "spacetime", which HIS universe exists in.
6. He has no evidence for "another gravity". He's making up crap.
My world is still the same. He SHOULD be nervous.
Conclusion Bullshit.

How does a human mind come to know of this thing called "time" which according to you is outside human minds.

How does a human mind come to know of entropy? Or even ideas of gravity? Even better, how does a human mind come to know anything?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

I got to page 7 of this shitfest before I fucking threw up. I've seen some disgusting bullshit in my time on this site and this thread takes the fucking cake.

I and I posted a thread about philosophy IN THE FUCKING PHILOSOPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!! and you mother fuckers came at him like you were the fucking Spanish Inquisition. Your behaviour is DISGUSTING!

I'm not even writing this post as a support of what I and I is saying. I'm writing it because you mother fuckers are perpetrating some bullshit.

I am sick and fucking tired of someone posting something on this site that doesn't jive with the dominant view and then being attacked as being religious. That's perverted on so many fucking levels it makes me sick. And when you do it, you are demonstrating two things:
1 - You do not think for yourself
2 - You are a prejudiced bigot

The sheer number of ad hominem attacks in this thread is vile, no, it's fucking embarrassing. The ratio of personal attacks to actual engagements with the idea is so pathetically low that everyone here should be ashamed.

And if any of you have the fucking AUDACITY to say "well I and I did it too," then you have no concept whatsoever of the term "Ganging up." You're the kind of person that calls Rodney King an asshole for trying to fight back!

You mother fuckers are bullies. Plain and simple.

I and I Wrote:They are what philosophers call a priori, which in philosophical terms
means shit that you learned so early in life you don't know it's
original origin.

I think that I understand where I and I is coming from and if my interpretation is correct, then it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss IN THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

If you are so disgusted by philosophy and think so little of it and dismiss it outright anytime you hear it, THEN STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST TROLLING!

You know that I respect you, Ghost, so you should know that I don't mean to provoke you with the following. I agree with the point you're trying to make, that personal attacks should be avoided so that a meaningful discussion can take place. Over the course of the last couple of months, I have learned time and time again that insults are not only counter-productive if your goal is to have a thoughtful conversation, but that they are also unnecessary because they don't give you any kind of advantage. I am, unfortunately, guilty of this in many of my old posts, but I have long since changed my behavior for the better by avoiding insults entirely, by apologizing to those whom I had formerly mocked and ridiculed and by calling people out on their bullying behavior occasionally.

That is why I cannot and do not approve of your approach to this problem. To harshly criticize people for personally attacking others while doing exactly that in the very same breath is hypocritical at best and detrimental to your overall point at worst. I can see why you would respond this way, given how much it seems to have angered you, but you should and probably do know that it would have been better to wait until you have cooled down so that you could have formulated your thoughts in a calm and rational manner, the way you usually do it. The number of people who did not insult I and I and tried to discuss with him instead outweighs the number of people who merely attacked him by a good amount. Perhaps you should read this thread a second time later on and examine whether or not you were generalizing a bit too much.

When you hold an apple above the ground and drop it, it progresses towards the earth. There is motion. This motion is not instantaneous, you can perceive this motion in steps. 1/4th the way down, 1/2. 3/4, then it hits. So what is this event progressing through? Spacetime.

It is changing it's position in space, which takes time.

Time is the movement of matter and energy in space, space is the grid in which matter and energy resides.

There is no right or wrong way to perceive time. There is only difference perceptions of time. The majority of humans perceive time at roughly the same rate but like all things, there is variation. This variation is dependant on the rate of firing of circuits in your brain. This can be influenced by the amount of dopamine in the brain, hence why nervous system stimulants, which cause the release of dopamine, make you think faster. Catatonia is essentially the slowing of the brain clock, makes their movements very slow and rigid. I am not sure the exact amount of change, and I am sure it varies. However you can think of what you perceive as a second as being just that, a second(average). Their second would be akin to say, five minutes.

As Bucky pointed out, time is relative (in more ways than one, three that I can think of). Your motion through space relative to another person effects your motion through time relative to that other another person. The strength of the gravitational field you reside in relative to another also effects your motion through time, relative to each other. This is why clocks on satellites have to be corrected using Einstein’s theories. The change in relative motion and relative gravitational field effect time. Hence Time Dilation.

I didn't read past page two, but it seems you might not understand relativity. So I recommend doing some reading.

"GUYS, I can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell time, so the passing of which must only exist as a construct of the human mind, and not as a property of the universe. You can show me all the atomic clocks you want, this shit just aint real. And the idea of time passing being required for my flawed thought processes, well that just seems like quantum woo woo."

(06-03-2013 12:10 PM)Ghost Wrote: I got to page 7 of this shitfest before I fucking threw up. I've seen some disgusting bullshit in my time on this site and this thread takes the fucking cake.

I and I posted a thread about philosophy IN THE FUCKING PHILOSOPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!! and you mother fuckers came at him like you were the fucking Spanish Inquisition. Your behaviour is DISGUSTING!

I'm not even writing this post as a support of what I and I is saying. I'm writing it because you mother fuckers are perpetrating some bullshit.

I am sick and fucking tired of someone posting something on this site that doesn't jive with the dominant view and then being attacked as being religious. That's perverted on so many fucking levels it makes me sick. And when you do it, you are demonstrating two things:
1 - You do not think for yourself
2 - You are a prejudiced bigot

The sheer number of ad hominem attacks in this thread is vile, no, it's fucking embarrassing. The ratio of personal attacks to actual engagements with the idea is so pathetically low that everyone here should be ashamed.

And if any of you have the fucking AUDACITY to say "well I and I did it too," then you have no concept whatsoever of the term "Ganging up." You're the kind of person that calls Rodney King an asshole for trying to fight back!

You mother fuckers are bullies. Plain and simple.

I and I Wrote:They are what philosophers call a priori, which in philosophical terms
means shit that you learned so early in life you don't know it's
original origin.

I think that I understand where I and I is coming from and if my interpretation is correct, then it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss IN THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

If you are so disgusted by philosophy and think so little of it and dismiss it outright anytime you hear it, THEN STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST TROLLING!

I read the entire thread, and felt like most involved were just slightly misunderstanding each other.

Quote:What's the OP's problem with time?

I don't think the OP actually had a problem with time. I think the OP just couldn't figure out how to accurately word his perspective on time.

Quote:Do you not agree that events happen in sequences?It is changing it's position in space, which takes time. Time is the movement of matter and energy in space, space is the grid in which matter and energy resides.

It appears to me the OP agreed events happen in sequences, but that he wanted others to acknowledge "time" is the movement of matter/energy as you have said. I think the OP's problem (though that's not a word I would use to describe his situation) was with using the word "time" when we could simply say "the movement of matter and energy". I think he was just trying to convey the idea that the notion of "time" is an abstraction used to make sense of and account for that movement in our decision making. If that's the case, I can identify with that desire, because I think there might be people who haven't considered that's possibly all "time" is, and I think some people could alleviate some of their stress could they come to a different understanding of "time".

Quote:As Bucky pointed out, time is relative (in more ways than one, three that I can think of).

I think all things are relative in the sense that all things exist in relation to all other existing things.

(06-03-2013 03:06 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: Your motion through space relative to another person effects your motion
through time relative to that other another person.

This is what I think the OP was contesting, and what I would, as well. When we say our motion through space relative to something affects our motion through time relative to that something, we know this due to effects we've observed, right? One example of such effects would be those found in two atomic clocks relating differently to the planet we live on, right?

Well, what exactly are we referring to by "time" in that case? My vague impression from the article posted by Bucky is that the clocks measure "time" by moving an aluminum ion between two energy levels, shining a laser on the ion at known frequency, and calculating its position relative to the laser's source or something like that. However it is that the clocks measure "time", isn't it that they only describe interaction/relation/conditions/circumstances/whatever between matter and energy?

Including "space" and "time" in our concept of existence seems comparable with ascribing "God's influence" to events we observe without observing "God". What do you folks think?